If they just had their hands on their lap or something

You are right. I'll be gone now.

http://ianjuby.org/paluxy-fossil-human-footprints-special-genesis-week-episode-33-season-2/

I would argue that there is a mountain of evidence for creation and against evolution, so this gets us nowhere.
Evolution is not synonymous with science or biology. Anyone can be a great biologist or physician or chemist without believing in evolution. Such scientists include Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin.
http://creation.mobi/creation-scientists
I'm getting a bit tired of this debate, but thanks for sharing your views on the issue, and listening to mine.

Thanks for the link. It was a bit wordy for me, but insightful. Abiogenesis is still not observable science, since self-replicating polymers (and abiogenesis in general) have never been observed arising in nature. It is a belief. The macro-evolution example requires many mutations which add more information than what the previous lizards had, and that these mutations are beneficial. There is not one observed example of a mutation creating more genetic information. All the mutations we have observed involve either losing or corrupting existing genetic information. Macro-evolution is a belief. Talking about "religious people," I can speak for Christianity at least, that the Bible's account in the book of Genesis is completely contrary to the evolutionary myth, so those religious people clearly have not done enough research on the topic. The Bible says 6 literal 24hr days (Hebrew word "yom") ~6000 years ago and that sin caused death, evolution says billions of years and death before sin.

The only scientifically factual evolution is micro-evolution (offspring is the same kind of animal; e.g. chihuauas and german shepherds are both dogs). The other five types of evolution, including common ancestry, are not observable, testable, or repeatable. These beliefs can be used to make predictions about where we may find certain fossils in different places, just like the Creationary Noah's Flood world view, but I think the Creationary model fits many observable facts much better than evolution. On a side note, doesn't evolution's first life form require abiogenesis, which goes against the natural laws?

As a young earth creationist myself, I believe science is a useful tool for explaining the facts we can observe, but science itself cannot explain what happened in history; someone has to have a world view to interpret how the facts could have originated. For the beginning of the universe, one can only speculate and believe in theories. Evolution should not to be confused with science. The old-age-Earth world view is unscientific, and frequently requires explanations that are outside the natural laws.

I've seen it in action, it really does.

I love your three comments! I agree wholeheartedly. I constantly feel like I'm being held back in high school, since I have learned so much university-level stuff about computer science, mathematics, and software development just from YouTube and Google searches, than we have ever been taught in high school.

When it comes to optimisation, the algorithms and shortcuts used for normal maths can be helpful.

So lonely